Conditions ripe for uprising across America

[Seth]

I propose we have a day of rage and go loot those that have a billion dollars or more.

You're free to try any time you like. I suspect that they have considered this sort of threat and have taken precautions...

[sandinista]

Here's one that has an appeal across political lines, a father's song for his daughter.

Great song, great band!

[.Morticia.]

A graphic for this thread to chew on:


It gets even more extreme when you look at the percentiles right at the top:

Top 1% owns more than 90% of us combined. "In 2007, the latest year for which figures are available from the Federal Reserve Board, the richest 1% of U.S. households owned 33.8% of the nation’s private wealth. That’s more than the combined wealth of the bottom 90 percent." (Also from the Working Group on Extreme Inequality)

400 people have as much wealth as half of our population. The combined net worth of the Forbes 400 wealthiest Americans in 2007: $1.5 trillion. The combined net worth of the poorest 50% of American households: $1.6 trillion.



Corporate wealth is also personal wealth. When you hear about corporations doing well, think about this chart:


The top 1% also own 50.9% of all stocks, bonds, and mutual fund assets. The top 10% own 90.3%.

Again, this is Marxist propaganda, as I explained below.

Now examine the standard of living for the bottom 90 percent in 1930 versus the standard of living for the bottom 90 percent now. What you will find is that lo and behold, everybody has a higher standard of living and more disposable income than they did before.

And if you want to buy stocks, bonds and mutual funds, then by all means do so.

Income inequality as complained about by you is meaningless propaganda, except to Marxists. What actually matters is that people have the opportunity to improve their economic situation in a free market economy, while people in a collectivist economy like socialism, do not. And once the redistribution of OPM stops, all socialist societies quickly fail and chaos and death follow.

Your opinion wouldn't be so laughable if you didn't actually believe it.

Yes, the IDEA is that people have opportunity, but the reality is different. Just look at the facts. The facts don't lie.

The fact is that the playing field is not flat, it's more like a cliff.

So in a way it's yes, there is opportunity, but NOT for all.

Only for the advantaged, the well born and the lucky.

But keep on peddling your blame the victim lies, because that way you won't have to confront the reality of how 99.5 % of the people live and take responsibility.

[Atheist-Lite]

The amplification effect of modern mass production means control is in the hands of a few(who inbreed & become dumb over time). Simple solution is to eliminate the dumb few and give the means of production to the smart at all levels. Whatever happens cannot be worse than now although the transition will be bad.

[Robert_S]

Here's one that has an appeal across political lines, a father's song for his daughter.

Great song, great band!

I don't listen to much Rap, but this guy could share the stage with Steve Earl and make it work so I got hooked.

[JimC]

.Morticia wrote:

Your opinion wouldn't be so laughable if you didn't actually believe it.

Yes, the IDEA is that people have opportunity, but the reality is different. Just look at the facts. The facts don't lie.

The fact is that the playing field is not flat, it's more like a cliff.

So in a way it's yes, there is opportunity, but NOT for all.

Only for the advantaged, the well born and the lucky.

But keep on peddling your blame the victim lies, because that way you won't have to confront the reality of how 99.5 % of the people live and take responsibility.

You have to be careful not to get absolutist here. Seth and others will point out, quite rightly, that there are indeed people from poor backgrounds who have mnade the big time.
The real point is that, on average, it is much harder for people with disadvantaged backgrouds to achieve financial success, and/or positions of status and power.

Little side note on leftist bands. If you get a chance, listen to an Aussie band called Redgum...

[sandinista]

.Morticia wrote:

Your opinion wouldn't be so laughable if you didn't actually believe it.

Yes, the IDEA is that people have opportunity, but the reality is different. Just look at the facts. The facts don't lie.

The fact is that the playing field is not flat, it's more like a cliff.

So in a way it's yes, there is opportunity, but NOT for all.

Only for the advantaged, the well born and the lucky.

But keep on peddling your blame the victim lies, because that way you won't have to confront the reality of how 99.5 % of the people live and take responsibility.

You have to be careful not to get absolutist here. Seth and others will point out, quite rightly, that there are indeed people from poor backgrounds who have mnade the big time.
The real point is that, on average, it is much harder for people with disadvantaged backgrouds to achieve financial success, and/or positions of status and power.

Little side note on leftist bands. If you get a chance, listen to an Aussie band called Redgum...

People from poor backgrounds that "make it big" are by far the exception. I mean, you could say "everyone has a chance to make it", which is true, but everyone also has the chance to win the lottery or get struck by lightning. There is a chance, but it is so small that it is insignificant.

[JimC]

.Morticia wrote:

Your opinion wouldn't be so laughable if you didn't actually believe it.

Yes, the IDEA is that people have opportunity, but the reality is different. Just look at the facts. The facts don't lie.

The fact is that the playing field is not flat, it's more like a cliff.

So in a way it's yes, there is opportunity, but NOT for all.

Only for the advantaged, the well born and the lucky.

But keep on peddling your blame the victim lies, because that way you won't have to confront the reality of how 99.5 % of the people live and take responsibility.

You have to be careful not to get absolutist here. Seth and others will point out, quite rightly, that there are indeed people from poor backgrounds who have mnade the big time.
The real point is that, on average, it is much harder for people with disadvantaged backgrouds to achieve financial success, and/or positions of status and power.

Little side note on leftist bands. If you get a chance, listen to an Aussie band called Redgum...

People from poor backgrounds that "make it big" are by far the exception. I mean, you could say "everyone has a chance to make it", which is true, but everyone also has the chance to win the lottery or get struck by lightning. There is a chance, but it is so small that it is insignificant.

I think it is larger than you are implying, but still small enough to negate the usual right wing position that anybody at all can make it. The real question is to find practical ways to allow people to achieve the best for themselves they can, and not be held down by their parent's poverty.

[Robert_S]

.Morticia wrote:

Your opinion wouldn't be so laughable if you didn't actually believe it.

Yes, the IDEA is that people have opportunity, but the reality is different. Just look at the facts. The facts don't lie.

The fact is that the playing field is not flat, it's more like a cliff.

So in a way it's yes, there is opportunity, but NOT for all.

Only for the advantaged, the well born and the lucky.

But keep on peddling your blame the victim lies, because that way you won't have to confront the reality of how 99.5 % of the people live and take responsibility.

You have to be careful not to get absolutist here. Seth and others will point out, quite rightly, that there are indeed people from poor backgrounds who have mnade the big time.
The real point is that, on average, it is much harder for people with disadvantaged backgrouds to achieve financial success, and/or positions of status and power.

Little side note on leftist bands. If you get a chance, listen to an Aussie band called Redgum...

People from poor backgrounds that "make it big" are by far the exception. I mean, you could say "everyone has a chance to make it", which is true, but everyone also has the chance to win the lottery or get struck by lightning. There is a chance, but it is so small that it is insignificant.

I'm more concerned with how easy it is to make it OK, rather than big. I mean having financial security, living in a safe neighborhood, having health coverage, and some discretionary income. I think that what would really kick off an uprising is if enough people cannot get that status or maintain it and feel that it is not their fault.

In Venezuela and Bolivia, I've read and heard that there were big problems with social mobility for a long time... Methinks that should be considered a self defense mechanism by all Capitalists. There will always be radical, socialist and Marxist rhetoric, but as long as most people think their chances under the current system look good, it'll go no further than a few trustifarians.

Seriously, I've been to the socialists meetings here. Not a calloused hand in the room.

[Seth]

Your opinion wouldn't be so laughable if you didn't actually believe it.

Don't believe everything you read.

Yes, the IDEA is that people have opportunity, but the reality is different. Just look at the facts. The facts don't lie.

Facts don't lie, people who think they are citing facts do, however, lie frequently.

The fact is that the playing field is not flat, it's more like a cliff.

"Level playing fields" are yet another Marxist notion. I didn't say anything about "flat" playing fields.

So in a way it's yes, there is opportunity, but NOT for all.

Wrong. Opportunity exists for everyone in a free market economy. That some people have to work harder or that they start from a different economic position is not relevant. The only thing that's relevant is whether the system is open to their success, not whether they achieve success. Free markets are open to anyone's success, unlike socialist centrally-planned and controlled economies. Nothing other than the individual's own determination and skill prevent someone in a free market economy from finding a consumer need and finding a way to fulfill it.

In places as desperately poor as India, people with determination create business opportunities for themselves by starting out as simply as buying a single cell phone and renting it out to other members of the community who have no access to telephone service. Women in Africa are now directly selling woven baskets in America thanks to the charitable efforts of a mother and homemaker who decided to start importing them.

Equal opportunity does not mean equal economic success. It means the absence of governmental interference in the free markets that keeps people out and prevents them from finding and exploiting consumer demand.

Only for the advantaged, the well born and the lucky.

As was cogently pointed out, there are plenty of examples of the desperately poor who excelled and worked hard and built economic empires. Bill Gates is just one such example.

But keep on peddling your blame the victim lies, because that way you won't have to confront the reality of how 99.5 % of the people live and take responsibility.

I'm not blaming the victim, I'm blaming the Marxists who take advantage of the poor to advance their evil schemes without the least regard for how that agenda actually affects the poor. When Marxists destroy free markets, like Chavez is doing in Venezuela, the plight of the poor is not improved, it gets much, much worse.

[Robert_S]

Your opinion wouldn't be so laughable if you didn't actually believe it.

Don't believe everything you read.

Yes, the IDEA is that people have opportunity, but the reality is different. Just look at the facts. The facts don't lie.

Facts don't lie, people who think they are citing facts do, however, lie frequently.

The fact is that the playing field is not flat, it's more like a cliff.

"Level playing fields" are yet another Marxist notion. I didn't say anything about "flat" playing fields.

So in a way it's yes, there is opportunity, but NOT for all.

Wrong. Opportunity exists for everyone in a free market economy. That some people have to work harder or that they start from a different economic position is not relevant. The only thing that's relevant is whether the system is open to their success, not whether they achieve success. Free markets are open to anyone's success, unlike socialist centrally-planned and controlled economies. Nothing other than the individual's own determination and skill prevent someone in a free market economy from finding a consumer need and finding a way to fulfill it.

In places as desperately poor as India, people with determination create business opportunities for themselves by starting out as simply as buying a single cell phone and renting it out to other members of the community who have no access to telephone service. Women in Africa are now directly selling woven baskets in America thanks to the charitable efforts of a mother and homemaker who decided to start importing them.

Equal opportunity does not mean equal economic success. It means the absence of governmental interference in the free markets that keeps people out and prevents them from finding and exploiting consumer demand.

Only for the advantaged, the well born and the lucky.

As was cogently pointed out, there are plenty of examples of the desperately poor who excelled and worked hard and built economic empires. Bill Gates is just one such example.

But keep on peddling your blame the victim lies, because that way you won't have to confront the reality of how 99.5 % of the people live and take responsibility.

I'm not blaming the victim, I'm blaming the Marxists who take advantage of the poor to advance their evil schemes without the least regard for how that agenda actually affects the poor. When Marxists destroy free markets, like Chavez is doing in Venezuela, the plight of the poor is not improved, it gets much, much worse.

There are the exceptional people who would probably do spectacularly no matter what. But in the broader picture, there's the average people. Most people are more or less average by definition. If the average people are doing shittily enough, you're going to have a change.

That's what was happening in Venezuela. Capitalism failed because capitalists did not sufficiently raise the standard of living or provide enough opportunities. To claim that the poor are duped by socialists rings as hollow as the charges of false consciousness that I hear so many on the far left talking about.

[Seth]

There are the exceptional people who would probably do spectacularly no matter what. But in the broader picture, there's the average people. Most people are more or less average by definition. If the average people are doing shittily enough, you're going to have a change.

That's what was happening in Venezuela. Capitalism failed because capitalists did not sufficiently raise the standard of living or provide enough opportunities. To claim that the poor are duped by socialists rings as hollow as the charges of false consciousness that I hear so many on the far left talking about.

Capitalism did not fail, Venezuela is, like most South American countries, an unending series of tin-pot, banana-republic dictatorships rife with corruption known as "presidential republics" that swing from military juntas to outright dictatorships to Marxist tyrannies. Venezuela's economic problems were mainly caused by an over-dependence on the oil markets and a concurrent spending spree that collapsed the economy during the oil glut and bust of the 80s.

Venezuela's economic difficulties have little or nothing to do with capitalism or free markets and everything to do with political corruption and bad economic planning. And Chavez isn't doing any better, and is actually doing far worse than his Republican predecessors.

This is what happens when a nation becomes drunk on the excesses of boom-and-bust commodities and fails to plan ahead properly for the inevitable bust cycle, and what happens when a society eschews moral and ethical conduct in favor of self-aggrandizing power grabs so typical of South American banana republics.

And Marxism and Communism do nothing to improve things for anyone, they just make it worse and lots of people get killed in the process.

[.Morticia.]

Really? No free markets in Venezuela? Then you haven't been doing your research. It's still mostly private enterprise.

Further, the average standard of living in Ven. has been improving, as has the infant mortality rate and average life expectancy.

This article discusses and refutes all the misinformation ( lies ) put out by the mainstream media.

http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/1763

And here's a nifty chart that puts it simply

[Seth]

Really? No free markets in Venezuela? Then you haven't been doing your research. It's still mostly private enterprise.

I didn't say that there were no free markets in Venezuela, I said that it's economic failures were not caused by the failure of capitalism or free markets. Do try to read more carefully.

Further, the average standard of living in Ven. has been improving, as has the infant mortality rate and average life expectancy.

Let's just ignore all the "disappeared" shall we?

This article discusses and refutes all the misinformation ( lies ) put out by the mainstream media.

http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/1763

Marxist propaganda.

[.Morticia.]

marxist propaganda ...lol

that's your answer for everything

it won't wash

facts are facts

regardless of whether or not you like them